Complaints
29. The MDP's Annual Report states that
The level of public satisfaction with the performance
of the Force is indicated, in part at least, by the number and
type of complaints made and the manner in which such complaints
are dealt with.[53]
The MDP has its own Complaints and Discipline Department
which in the last reporting year for which figures are available
investigated 54 complaints. This is about a tenth of the normal
number of complaints for a Home Department force of comparable
size: the MDP accepts that this is largely because the MDP deals
with 'a more restricted public ... in a more restricted number
of situations'. But it is worth noting that, even though the MDP's
contact with the public is increasing, the number of complaints
shows a downward trend.[54]
Internal discipline investigations are also undertaken where there
are grounds for suspecting an officer has not carried out his
duty properly. 119 formal investigations were carried out in the
last reporting year, which also reflects a decreasing trend; the
largest category of incident is police vehicle accidents.[55]
30. The MDP states that its complaints and discipline
regulations are subject, where appropriate, to 'external and independent
supervision by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Procurators
Fiscal and the independent Police Complaints Authority'.[56]
In addition, the Force's response to complaints from the public,
and its discipline reports, are inspected on a quarterly basis
by the police adviser to the MoD Police Committee, who is HM Chief
Inspector of Constabulary. The Assistant Chief Constable believed
that, in this respect, the MDP's procedures were more rigorously
reviewed than those of other forces.[57]
31. However, it is MDP's relationship with the Police
Complaints Authority (PCA) which has aroused most concern.[58]
This relationship is more complicated than for Home Department
police forces. An agreement between the Defence Council and the
Police Complaints Authority established arrangements set out in
the Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985.
When the MDP Act 1987 came into force, a further agreement was
signed between the Secretary of State and the PCA in June 1988,
resulting in the MDP (Discipline) (Amendment) Regulations 1988.
These complaints and discipline regulations correspond to those
in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for Home Department
police forces. The MoD said in response to a Parliamentary Question
in March that
The MDP regulations mirrored those of the Home Department
forces until the Home Department forces regulations changed in
April 1999 ... The proposals in Clause 32 of the [present] Armed
Forces Bill are designed to enable parity to be restored.[59]
But those proposals failed to become law. At present
the Secretary of State has the power to dismiss a member of the
MDP but has no power to transfer the function of imposing penalties
to an outside body, in contrast to local police forces where a
key element of the disciplinary process is that officers or others
from outside the force concerned take such decisions. The effect
of Clause 32 would have been to give the Secretary of State the
power to make regulations establishing disciplinary procedures
for the MDP which would have included provision to allow disciplinary
decisions to be made by persons outside the MoD and the MDP, so
that their procedures were equivalent to those governing local
police forces.[60]
32. The Home Secretary said, in the Second Reading
debate on the Anti-Terrorism Bill, that: 'it is right and proper
that in the police reform legislation that we will introduce next
year, we ensure that the normal powers for police complaints will
be available.' The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, MoD
(Dr Moonie), referred during Committee stage to provisions originally
in the Armed Forces Bill to put MDP discipline 'on to a statutory
footing and to allow important decisions on discipline ... to
be taken on just the same basis as for Home Department forces'
and confirmed that it was the Government's intention to include
equivalent provisions in the police reform Bill.[61]
33. The Head of the MDP Secretariat expanded on the
position regarding complaints against the MDP in evidence
They are dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority
in exactly the same circumstances as they would be if they were
made against an officer of the home department force. The legal
route by which you get there is slightly different but the procedure
is just the same.[62]
34. We welcome the assurance that new legislation
will be introduced to address this apparent anomaly. We would
have preferred the legislation to reform the current complaints
procedure to have been in place at the same time as the new powers
are conferred on the MDP but, given the urgency to introduce measures
to combat terrorism, we do not believe that, at this stage, this
should stand in the way of the passage of the provisions of the
present Bill. However, we would expect the police reform legislation
to be brought forward as a matter of priority early in the New
Year.
Inspections
35. The MDP has been the subject of inquiry and examination
many times in its history. Indeed, a predecessor Defence Committee
commented
There can have been few areas of policy that have
been subjected to more scrutiny than policing and guarding within
the MoD, particularly the MDP'.[63]
In addition to a number of inquiries carried out
by the Defence Committee referred to above,[64]
the Ministry of Defence has itself conducted several reviews of
the MDP. The most recent of these include: The Defence Police
and Guarding Structures Study; The Defence Guarding and
Police Manpower Review; and Employment of the MoD Police
in the Royal Ordnance Factories; all published in 1995 and
all of which were examined by our predecessors.[65]
As an MoD agency, it is subject to Quinquennial Reviews, as we
have described (see paragraph 10); and further studies are carried
out by the MoD Department of Internal Audit. Legislation brought
forward affecting the MDP provides another opportunity for scrutiny,
as most recently demonstrated by the work of the Select Committee
on the Armed Forces Bill, and in this Report.
36. Regular, formal inspection of the MDP is carried
out by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary about every five years[66]
and we were told that an inspection was under way at the time
of our inquiry.[67]
However, such inspections currently take place by invitation rather
than having the statutory basis which applies to local police
forces.[68]
During the consideration of the Armed Forces Bill, the Secretary
of State indicated to the Select Committee that he would consider
putting inspections on the same footing as other civilian police
forces,[69]
and the Bill was in fact amended during Committee stage in the
Commons to this effect.[70]
In the event, as the relevant Clauses were subsequently withdrawn
from the Bill during consideration in the Lords, this amendment
fell and no change was made in the inspection arrangements. The
Head of the MDP Secretariat indicated that the necessary legislative
change would be made 'very shortly' and we were glad to hear the
Minister confirm this during Committee stage.[71]
We believe that inspections of the MDP by HM Inspectorate of
Constabulary should be carried out on a statutory basis and expect
to see provisions to this effect in the police reform legislation
which the Government has indicated will be introduced in the new
year.
48 See,
for example, evidence from National Union of Journalists, HC 154-II,
Session 2000-01, op cit, QQ 807-848 and Ev pp 107-108;
and from other witnesses, Ev pp 229-231, 247, 255-261, 263-266,
and 269 Back
49 Q 56;
HC 154-I, Session 2000-01, op cit, paragraph 40 Back
50 HC
154-I, Session 2000-01, op cit, paragraphs 41-42 Back
51 Q 57 Back
52 HC
Deb, 26 November 2001, c 779 Back
53 HC
609, Session 1999-2000, op cit, p 10 Back
54 HC
154-I, Session 2000-01, op cit, para 51; HC 609, Session
1999-2000, op cit, p 10 Back
55 HC
609, Session 1999-2000, op cit, p 10 Back
56 ibid Back
57 Q 55 Back
58 See,
for example, Second Reading of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
Bill, HC Deb, 19 November 2001, c 79; Committee Stage, HC Deb,
26 November, c 770 Back
59 HC
Deb, 22 March 2001, c 298-299w Back
60 Explanatory
Notes to the Armed Forces Bill, paragraphs 115-117. See also
Ev p 26. Back
61 HC
Deb, 19 November 2001, c 37 and 26 November 2001, cc 779-780;
see also Q 16 Back
62 Q 53 Back
63 Eighth
Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1995-96, HC 189, op
cit, para 6 Back
64 These
are: Second Report, Session 1983-84, The Physical Security
of Military Installations in the United Kingdom , HC 397-I;
Second Report, Session 1984-85, Security at Royal Ordnance
Factories and Nuclear Bases, HC 217; Sixth Report, Session
1989-90, Physical Security at Military Installations, HC
171; Eighth Report, Session 1995-96, Ministry of Defence Police
and Guarding, HC 189 Back
65 See
HC 189, Session 1995-96, op cit Back
66 The
last inspection was in 1997/98. See 1997/98 Inspection, Ministry
of Defence Police: A report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Back
67 Q 51 Back
68 HC
Deb, 26 November 2001, c 779 Back
69 HC
154-I, Session 2000-01, op cit, paragraph 42 Back
70 See
HC Deb, 2 April 2001, cc 121-122 Back
71 Q 49;
HC Deb, 26 November 2001, c 779 Back